§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYBefore the House adjourns I desire to refer to a subject which was dealt with by question and answer at an earlier stage of our proceedings to-day, and which relates to the naturalisation, some two months after the War had begun, and to the recent de-naturalisation of a lady bearing the name of Caroline Hanemann. The facts of the case shortly are these, and I make myself responsible for them. As to the responsibility of hon. Members upon questions of fact I wish to protest against the perfunctory manner in which they are brushed aside by His Majesty's Ministers. The facts are these: Caroline Hanemann was the companion to a lady who is the sister of Mrs. Asquith. In the month of October, 1914, she was naturalised. During the year 1916, at a very critical period of the history of the War, she was in residence at No. 10, Downing Street. I have in my possession several original letters written by her from that address to various West End tradesmen giving them instructions as to the delivery of parcels and other things which she was purchasing.
Pausing here for a moment, I want to enter, on behalf of private Members of this House, a protest. In the question as framed by me, and addressed to the Home Secretary, I reiterated a statement which had previously been made in other directions that this lady was for a time resident at 10, Downing Street, and the right hon. Gentleman, in answering my last question on the Paper to-day, said he could find no evidence that such was the case. I think, and I say it with respect, and also a good deal of conviction, that before a Minister of the Crown in Parliamentary language gives the lie to a private Member on a question of fact—I admit it was merely a Parliamentary phrase—he ought to take some special steps to check the statement which he makes, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will oblige me in his reply by telling me what inquiries he made which led him to doubt the truth of my statement as to the residence of this lady at 10, Downing Street. Did he inquire at 10, Downing Street, or 865 did he inquire of the ex-Prime Minister, whether the lady was or was not resident there or what did he do, because in the absence of some such inquiry the outside public might jump to the conclusion that private Members are so utterly irresponsible in their methods that they hurl these things at Minister's heads without justification.
And now as to the residence of this lady at 10, Downing Street, I do not mean since the fall of the late Government. It is no concern of mine as to whether she may or may not have been resident as a visitor, but I confine my criticisms to the official residence, my suggestion being that for a German woman to be naturalised two months after the War began, being allowed to live in the are and of the War secrets of the world, with access to all the most confidential sources of information, and then mysteriously to be denaturalised, is a matter which required some explanation from the Department of State responsible for these things.
In these circumstances and having regard to a good deal of information which I possess, and which ought to be in possession of the Home Office if it has any Intelligence Department at all as to the movements and activities of this lady, I have asked more than once, and I ask here now once more, why cannot we be told the names of the British citizens guaranteeing the suitability of this lady for British nationality? What is the mystery? The Home Secretary used two phrases this afternoon. One was that by keeping these names secret you get more reliable references in cases of naturalisation. I do not know how that worked in the Laszlo case or in this case. I do not know how it worked in the case of the pathologist who was de-naturalised the other day. I want to know why we cannot be told these names. The other answer the Home Secretary gave was this: he said the whole thing has been carefully considered, and we think it better not to publish the names. This House exists, I imagine, for public purposes, for the benefit of the State. I want to know for whom is it better that these names should not be published. Is it better for the guarantors, better for Caroline Hanemann, better for the State, or better for the Home Office? I suggest that the last is the correct reply. I have often heard other hon. Members say that before they ask questions they should not supply the answer. Therefore, I am not going to say 866 that I know the answer, but I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me the answer. If for the moment he does not want to give me the names, then let him tell the House why it is better that those names should not be published. That is a simple question. In whose interest is it better?
Quite apart from that, I say that when a person has been naturalised, and naturalised after the War, on the sponsorship of our British citizens, and shortly afterwards is de-naturalised, it follows necessarily that each of those sponsors must have given a reckless and thoughtless guarantee on behalf of that person, and their names ought not to be shielded in the times in which we live. This is all part and parcel of the general system of hushing up things as soon as private Members become inquisitive. Here was a woman acting in German interests boasting that she had protection in high places, living in 10, Downing Street, naturalised after the War, and mysteriously de-naturalised, and when I ask why she was de-naturalised the right hon. Gentleman adopted a formula which is very popular with him, and refers me to the terms of the Act of Parliament. I am told that the Committee, because she was naturalised after the War, had simply to say, "Yes" or "No," and they had to ask themselves is it desirable that her certificate should be revoked?
The right hon. Gentleman told me today that the Committee gave no reason. Does the right hon. Gentleman say seriously to the House that he does not know the reason, that he has not got it in his possession, and that since I raised this matter he has not made an inquiry? If he does not know it, he does not keep a very close observation on the inquiries and correspondence relating to the Naturalisation Department of the Home Office. I say that the right hon. Gentleman knows why this woman was de-naturalised. He has in his possession the names of the sponsors for the woman, and yet he tells us that for some mysterious reason it is better that we should not be told. I press this matter upon the right hon. Gentleman. I say that there is no reason why the same course should not be adopted here as was adopted in the Laszlo case. It may be the practice of the Home Office not to publish these names, but there are many practices of the Home Office that will have to be altered in the days to come. It was done in the 867 Laszlo case, and done because this House insisted upon it being done. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Laszlo case was much more important than this case. Why more important? Because this fashionable artist was decorating canvases with the alleged faces of society ladies and others, and in that way, I suppose, became in possession of more or less reliable information about public affairs. That is the only degree of comparison with this woman. Is it more important that this society painter or a woman living in the very heart of the war councils and secrets of this realm should be carefully watched? Having got the names in the one case it is the more important that we should have them in the other.
Who were the sponsors? Let us have them. Who was responsible for the naturalisation of this woman? Why has she been denaturalised? If you will not give us the names of the sponsors, and the reasons for her denaturalisation, at least give us some intelligent reason why you will not do it. You cannot say now that it would be giving information to the enemy. It is too late for that. I do not think that you can say it is not in the public interest that you should give the information. You say that you have come to the conclusion that it is better that you should not publish the names. I want the question answered, and I make no apology for keeping the right hon. Gentleman here for the purpose of answering it. I know, from various sources of information which come to me and from many conversations which I have had with hon. Members of this House, that the country is tired of this policy of hushing things up in the Home Office. We think that there is no reason for hushing this matter up. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want me to weary him day after day by letters and telephone messages and questions in this House, he had better take his courage in both hands and say who guaranteed Caroline Hanemann, and why she was denaturalised. I call upon the right hon. Gentleman now, as our guardian, as guardian of the public in this matter, as spokesman of the Home Office, whom we trust and pay to look after our interests, to get up and tell us the truth or give us some reason for concealing it from us.
§ Mr. BILLINGEven after some months after the Armistice it is indeed difficult to approach this subject, having regard to 868 the attitude of the Home Office, without a certain amount of warmth. Not once, but on many occasions, both the hon. Member who has just spoken and I myself have had occasion to call the attention of the House to the secrecy of the Home Office in all matters pertaining to German influences in this country. While I have no desire to strike what might be called a lighter note, I may say that in the course of travelling about this country, which I do pretty considerably, I have frequently heard that Department referred to as the "Hun Office," the reason being that during the four years of War, and since, it seems to have been the one duty of the Home Office to protect the interests of the enemies in this country rather than to protect the general interests and the welfare of the people of this country against, shall we say, enemy hatred and machinations. I have asked the Home Secretary not only indirectly by questions on the Paper, but directly lay way of supplementary questions, whether he is prepared to disclose the names, not only in this case, but in other cases. I have pointed out to him, and I feel that many hon. Members will agree with me, that any person who becomes a guarantor for an enemy subject in time of war should be subjected, not only to publicity, but to the same punishment which falls upon the spy who is discovered. Ignorance in a time of war should not be counted as innocence, especially when ignorance is calculated to bring failure to the efforts which we make. Any man who harbours a spy in time of war in ordinary circumstances would be shot, and I make bold to say that the late Prime Minister harboured a spy at 10, Downing Street. What is the reason for this complete silence? The Home Secretary does not deny that this woman was there. I understand there is plenty of evidence that can be brought forward, and It rust, if he does deny that she was there, he will tell us one or two interesting facts in connection with the matter. Would he kindly tell the House to whom he applied at 10, Downing Street for his information as to whether, while the late Prime Minister was in residence, she was ever the guest either of the late Prime Minister or his illustrious wife? Would he tell us, if she was in residence, in what capacity she was in residence, whether as a friend or as an employé, and, if she was there as an employé, what was her employment? What was the character of her occupation while she remained at 869 10, Downing Street, during the most critical period of the War? I think our Home Secretaries of late have been most disappointing. The statements of Mr. McKenna—
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYWho naturalised this woman.
§ Mr. BILLINGWho naturalised this woman. Mr. McKenna's statement in connection with enemies were not such as to give us any confidence in his administration. What the British public thought of Mr. McKenna was evidenced last December, and I feel sure that what the British public will think of the present Home Secretary, if he does not take his courage in both hands, will be evidenced on the next available occasion. I sincerely trust it will. If I might make bold to say so, otherwise charming private Members, directly they take upon themselves the mantle of office, seem to forget the struggles and the indignities which they suffered at the hands of the Front Bench up till quite recently before their appointment. Of course, I know that one f the qualifications for the Front Bench is not to do anything in this House which would cause you to suffer indignity it their hands, as is evident by the present appointments of this Government. But what right has the Home Secretary, who is a public servant, drawing a high salary from the public purse, to defend the enemies of this country? What right has he to tell this House of freely-elected Members, or, at least, so it is popularly believed, "I withhold this important matter. I refuse to tell you who it was who not only stood sponsor for this German agent, but who was responsible for her being present at 10, Downing Street during the most critical period of the War"? The Home Secretary, when he re plies, has an opportunity of, shall I say, cleansing himself a little, of wiping away some of the public distrust in the administration of the Home Office, and I hope he will take that opportunity. One of the main reasons why he occupies his present position was the extraordinary distrust the public had of the late occupant of that office, who, in his turn, took the place of a man who was equally distrusted, and who, in his turn, took the place of a man who was also distrusted. The affairs of the people are, to a great extent, in the hands of the Home Office. They exercise possibly more power than any other 870 Ministry of the Crown, and here we find them concealing such a fact as this, as the hon Member who preceded me said, and as I repeat—in whose interest is it to conceal this? It cannot surely be the interests of the public, unless the Home Office consider that so scandalous, so outrageous, would the disclosure be that it would be calculated to rob the Government of any credit or any trust that the public may have in it. If that were the case, and the Home Secretary would tell us, "Did I make this disclosure to night I feel it will cause the greatest mistrust in the present Administration," I, for one, would be prepared to accept that statement, and to press no further, and leave it in the hands of the public to decide when the power is given them once more to exercise the privilege which is theirs. But I do not think that that is so. I think, if the right hon. Gentleman makes the disclosure to-night, he will find it not so closely associated with the present as with the past Administration, and I do press the Home Secretary to answer at least three definite questions. The first is this. He told us to-day, at Question Time, that he had made the closest inquiry and that there was no foundation for the statement that this lady had resided at 10, Downing Street.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt)I did not say that.
§ Mr. BILLINGNo evidence. I think this is a perfectly sporting offer, and that the right hon. Gentleman might accept it. Having made that statement, would he tell this House to whom he applied; whether it was toy letter or by word of mouth, and, if he received a letter in reply to his application, by whom was it signed? And if he saw anyone in connection with it, whom did he see? Obviously, the only people whom he could have consulted were the late Prime Minister or his wife. I want him to tell the House who it was, so that we can at least pin the responsibility for the lie, if the lie exists. I want him also to say who were the sponsors for this woman, and what were the reasons for her denaturalisation. May I further ask him whether he is prepared to say that in future no enemy subjects, in fact no subjects of any other nation, shall be naturalised unless the sponsors, if any, their names and addresses, are published, and the reasons 871 why they stand sponsors are given? Is there any reason why any person who desires to take up British nationality should be ashamed to give some reasons for it. This is done in much too lax a manner. I trust, before the House adjourns to-night, the Home Secretary will answer the questions I have put to him. It the last three years I have taken grave steps and I have faced very grave risks in endeavouring to expose German agents in England, and if it culminates in an assurance of the Home Secretary that these steps and these risks will not be necessary in future, I shall feel that not only the risks that have been taken but the Motion for the Adjournment to-night has not detained the House in vain.
§ Mr. SEXTONI will not detain the House very long. When I came here I understood that this obnoxious person was suddenly discovered in 10, Downing Street, and had hidden herself in some subterranean dug-out. I do not like German spies, but I now understand that the question of this person is one of ancient history. I only want to say, as a Member of this House, that with all my hatred of German spies I want to enter my protest against the time and the patience of the House being butchered to make a German holiday for men who are digging out these people who have been so long in hiding.
§ Mr. SHORTTThe question that has been raised to-night has been raised in two forms, and I particularly ask the House to remember this. There is, first of all, the general form of question, namely, as to the policy of not disclosing the names of those who vouch for persons asking for naturalisation—the policy generally with regard to aliens who ask to be naturalised in this country. There is, secondly, the individual case which was mentioned; an individual case in itself of absolutely no importance, but of which it is sought to taint the whole discussion, because of the fact that the mistress of this woman, whom she has served faithfully since 1890—she is no newcomer to this country, this Caroline Hanemann, she has been a faithful maid and servant to a confirmed invalid lady since 1890—
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYWhy was she de naturalised then?
§ Mr. SHORTTHer case is brought in to prejudice the discussion of the whole subject, merely because the lady in ques- 872 tion is a relation of Mrs. Asquith. That is the sole reason why this case is brought in. I would ask the House to bear with me while I shortly put the case for the general aspect of the subject, and I would ask them to dismiss from their minds that there is an individual case—which I shall deal with—connected with the ex-Prime Minister and Mrs. Asquith, and which, for that reason, assumes an importance which it would not otherwise possess—
§ Mr. BILLINGWhy was she denaturalised?
§ Mr. BILLINGI must have notice of that question.
§ Mr. SHORTTWith regard to the general question of the advisability of giving the names of those who have vouched for aliens who have been naturalised in this country. This is no new rule, it is a very old practice going back far beyond the date of the War, and when you consider that you must consider the question as a whole. If you are going to publish the names of those who vouch for the lady who happened to be naturalised—
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYAfter the War.
§ Mr. SHORTTIt does not matter whether it was after the War or before. We are discussing the point of general policy, and I am not going to be drawn away from that. I will deal subsequently with the individual case raised. But with regard to general policy, if you are going to publish the names of those who vouch for the person who successfully applies for naturalisation, what are you going to do with the names of those who oppose the person who applies, and whose sponsors have a right to demand to know on what ground the naturalisation is refused? If you are going to publish the names of those who vouch for a successful applicant, you must be prepared to give the information on which you deny the application of the unsuccessful applicant. Does anybody suppose for a moment that you are likely to get the right facts in regard to the case of a rich alien who could bring a heavy and expensive action for libel? You have to consider these things, and if they are considered will you get the truth when the person who tells you so-and-so has applied for naturalisation and is not fit for it, runs the danger 873 that those who give the information are liable at once to an action for defamation. If you are going to run the risk of that, well and good, but if not you must adopt the general policy which was the general policy of this country for years before the War, that information given with regard to any alien who applies for naturalisation is more profitably given if it is known it will not be disclosed. That is the general policy. If at any time by resolution this House says it is not right, then the Home Office will accept that decision, but it has been accepted in this country as the best policy and the one more likely to get the real truth about the individual alien applying for naturalisation, and most likely to protect this country in the long run.
Now with regard to each individual case. This Caroline Hanemann is no newcomer to this country. She is a trained nurse. In 1890 she went into the service of Mr. Asquith's sister, Mrs. Graham Smith, as a maid nurse. She had served her faithfully from that day till this, and she has never been in any other employment. She has never been employed in Downing Street, except it may be that Mrs. Graham Smith may have stayed there, and she has been with her as her maid. Is it really suggested—it was put by the hon. Member for Hackney, I could only have inquired of Mr. Asqttith—is it really suggested that Mr. Asquith knows the individualities of the maids of any lady who may stay at his house? It is ridiculous. If Miss Caroline Hanemann was there, let it be remembered that she had been in the employ of Mrs. Graham Smith from 1890, and she applied for naturalisation when the War broke out, as many another person did because of the very awkward position they were in in this country. She was vouched for not by a single Member of this House, either a present or a late Member, nor by a single Member of this House, either present or late. She was vouched for—I will give one name, in spite of the practice, because it is the worst name that can be brought against the case—it is the name of her own mistress whom she had served faithfully for twenty-four years. The others were local gentlemen who have nothing whatever to do with this House, and whom neither Mr. nor Mrs. Asquith probably ever heard of. They were local gentlemen who knew this Caroline Hanemann down in Wiltshire, where she lived. Whether she has been in Downing Street or not I cannot say. I 874 can find no evidence, and I am not going to insult Mr. and Mrs. Asquith by asking them if they harboured a spy. The question put down by the hon. Member for Hackney said that she "stayed at 10, Downing Street, for some months in the year 1916."Does the hon. Member suggest for a moment that these words, "for some months in the year 1916," cover a casual visit of two or three days—a visit of Mrs. Asquith's sister? Is it intended to suggest that she was employed by Mr. or Mrs. Asquith, or both, in Downing Street for months in 1916? If so, that is absolutely false.
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYI have never made such a suggestion. I never said she was employed by Mr. or Mrs. Asquith; I said she was there in 1916.
§ Mr. BILLINGI think it is I who was responsible for that statement. I asked whether it was the fact that she was employed there. I did not state that she was. If the right hon. Gentleman denies it, perhaps he can give us the information on which he denies it.
§ Mr. SHORTTThe hon. Member for Hackney used these words in his question to-day, that she "stayed at 10, Downing Street, for some months during the year 1916." If I have misjudged what he meant by that, I apologise and withdraw. But that appears to me to be the suggestion, and so far as I am able to ascertain there is no truth in it. She any have been there for a day or two. That is all I can say. With regard to the Laszlo case, in that case the exception was made not by me, but by my predecessor, for a very definite reason, not because of the importance of the case, not because the position of Mr. Laszlo gave it importance, but because of the fact that Members of this House and of the other House were amongst the vouchers, and, therefore, it was felt that, that being the case, this House was entitled to ask that exception should be made and the names of the vouchers given. That was the only difference between the Laszlo case and this. In this case no such question arises. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney asks me why this woman was denaturalised. I do not know, and, what is more, I do not intend to ask, for this very good reason. This House of Commons set up a Committee whose business it is to inquire into these cases. There is a judge at the head 875 of the Committee. The House definitely decided, by substituting the word "shall" for "may," that the Home Office should obey whatever the Committee decided. We are bound to accept their decisions, and, that being the case, we have no right to inquire on what grounds they came to those decisions. If the Bill had been left in the form in which it was drafted, the Home Office would have been entitled to disregard the decisions of the Committee, and it would then have been my duty to ask for its reasons; but, as I am bound to accept the decision of the Committee, I have absolutely no right to ask for those I reasons. I can tell the House this, that the question of the denaturalisation of Miss Hanemann was not raised under the Section which deals with the cases where it is proved that the particular person was disaffected to His Majesty either in words or in deeds. It related entirely to that Section which went into the question whether the naturalisation was justified at the time it was made, and it does not in the least involve, of necessity, any suggestion of disaffection, disloyalty or danger to this country that a person who has been naturalised since the War has been denaturalised. It 876 may be that some of them are disaffected. Some of them may be dangerous. But it does not follow of necessity. It is not like a case where the Committee have found as a fact that the individual was guilty either by word or deed of disaffection to His Majesty. That is the position with regard to the finding of the Committee. It is a finding I am bound to accept, and I accept it. I have no right to question it or the reasons for it, therefore I do not do so. I think I have dealt with the questions put to me by my hon. Friend who raised this question on the Adjournment. The general question is one quite apart from the individual. I ask the House not to allow their judgment to be warped, when they are considering the general policy and the general question, by the facts of any individual case that may be put before them. With regard to the individual case, I cannot help suggesting to the House that but for the fact that it gives ground for an attack upon an hon. Member of this House who is no longer here to protect himself, it never would have been raised at all.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes before Ten o'clock.